Can causality be infinite?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is interesting because I had a vivid dream last night. I somehow came into possession of piles of money. Literally piles. I became so engrossed in the money that I lost track of my wallet. Suddenly I had to find my wallet. When I found it, all my credit cards and identification were missing. I got scared. Who took them? My brother said he had them but when he gave them to me, they were only some old pictures. I never found my credit cards or ID.

This is too tempting to let pass, some dream analysis! To me it seems obvious what caused the dream elements: money is about materialism and form, the love and entanglement with it, even to the degree of letting it become a spirituality - or spirituality can become a form of money - coinage. Credit cards and ID have to do with credibility, consistency, ego, identity and stuff. This is what gets lost when swimming in 'money'.

It's all seems rather obvious but even if I'm wrong, the dream is still full of causes: the missing ID causing scare, the money causing you to lose track. Some memories of processes in your waking life fueled these residual thoughts, no matter how disorganized and as unlikely they were being presented.

[Dave Toast]

Toast,

Obviously we don't understand each other's positions but you want to make that my problem. Fine. Enjoy yourself.

As I just said sam, you misunderstand the misunderstanding on my part. And if you want to make that my problem, knock yerself out.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

This is too tempting to let pass, some dream analysis! To me it seems obvious what caused the dream elements: money is about materialism and form, the love and entanglement with it, even to the degree of letting it become a spirituality - or spirituality can become a form of money - coinage. Credit cards and ID have to do with credibility, consistency, ego, identity and stuff. This is what gets lost when swimming in 'money'.

Hmm, that's an interesting take.

In any event, the point is that the dream environment is a world in its own right. You want to ascribe what happens there to the physical world where cause and effect operate. But within the dream itself, there is no physical world. To say the cause of the money is my entanglement with it here is simply to erase the divide between dream and physical. The dream shows that things can happen without cause and be accepted as perfectly normal. Whatever happens is simply incorporated within our existing expectations. In that light, when things happen here without cause, we incorporate them by providing an explanation and acting in accordance with our belief.

It's all seems rather obvious but even if I'm wrong, the dream is still full of causes: the missing ID causing scare, the money causing you to lose track. Some memories of processes in your waking life fueled these residual thoughts, no matter how disorganized and as unlikely they were being presented.

Oh, it was a very interesting dream for sure. I'm currently in the stock market and its driving me nuts. Still, it's quite obvious to me that things can happen for no reason at all and the world can function fine on that level. Causation is not the only way to run things. Belief seems to be just as efficient.



Toast,

As I just said sam, you misunderstand the misunderstanding on my part. And if you want to make that my problem, knock yerself out.

I have no problem with you, Toast. You don't enjoy talking with me. You want to make that my problem. Okay, whatever. If you don't want to talk, no one is twisting your arm. Enjoy yourself.

[David Quinn]

In any event, the point is that the dream environment is a world in its own right. You want to ascribe what happens there to the physical world where cause and effect operate. But within the dream itself, there is no physical world. To say the cause of the money is my entanglement with it here is simply to erase the divide between dream and physical. The dream shows that things can happen without cause and be accepted as perfectly normal. Whatever happens is simply incorporated within our existing expectations. In that light, when things happen here without cause, we incorporate them by providing an explanation and acting in accordance with our belief.

This is like someone watching a movie and saying, "Look at the way that each scene follows another, often quite abruptly and differently. Such jumping about doesn't occur in the real world, and I can't see anything in the movie which could cause such jumping about. Therefore, it follows that each scence is occurring without cause. "

That is the level of your argument.

A dream is every bit as caused as a movie is. But instead of directors, actors, script-writers, cameras, etc, we have neurons firing, the activation of memory, the imagination's ability to create loose associations, one's fears and repressed feelings creating emotional scenarios, recent experiences in the physical world providing raw material, etc.

-

[samadhi]

This is like someone watching a movie and saying, "Look at the way that each scene follows another, often quite abruptly and differently. Such jumping about doesn't occur in the real world, and I can't see anything in the movie which could cause such jumping about. Therefore, it follows that each scence is occurring without cause. "

That is the level of your argument.

Not quite. The dream environment is its own dimension. You want to see the dream environment only in terms of the physical. Yet within the dream no physical explanation is even imaginable. It would be like me saying the cause for my money here and now is really about something happening in another dimension. It may be true but from my present vantage point, it makes no sense. I would much prefer something I can understand, so too in a dream the explanation would be much more prosaic. But the fact remains that the appearance of some things is inexplicable within that environment but nonetheless accepted. Whatever causes you imagine, they are never the final word on what is actually happening.

A dream is every bit as caused as a movie is. But instead of directors, actors, script-writers, cameras, etc, we have neurons firing, the activation of memory, the imagination's ability to create loose associations, one's fears and repressed feelings creating emotional scenarios, recent experiences in the physical world providing raw material, etc.

I understand this. But the fact that you can imagine a cause doesn't mean that IS the cause. It is still your imagination doing the creating after the fact. Just as in the dream, whatever I imagined about the money would be wrong, so too here and now with your own imagination. It may simply be wrong.

[David Quinn]

This is like someone watching a movie and saying, "Look at the way that each scene follows another, often quite abruptly and differently. Such jumping about doesn't occur in the real world, and I can't see anything in the movie which could cause such jumping about. Therefore, it follows that each scence is occurring without cause. "

That is the level of your argument.

Not quite. The dream environment is its own dimension. You want to see the dream environment only in terms of the physical. Yet within the dream no physical explanation is even imaginable. It would be like me saying the cause for my money here and now is really about something happening in another dimension.

That would certainly be a far more plausible explanation than concluding that the money just popped into existence out of thin air.

I mean, if you saw some money in your wallet and couldn't remember how it got there, the last thing you would conclude is that the money simply popped in there without any cause.

In any case, the mere fact that a dreaming mind is ignorant of the larger world isn't an argument against the idea that the larger world is causally creating the dream. His ignorance doesn't mean that causation is somehow cut off at the limits of his perception. Causal processes continue to occur regardless of whether a person perceives them or not.

-

[David Quinn]

"no longer being bound by forms" - what the hell is this? Even the enlightened have a body, thoughts and feelings.

This is a key stage before enlightenment can be realized - that is, knowing how to become free of all forms by utilizing the understanding of the formlessness of all things. In turn, this deep understanding cannot be actualized and put into practice until one thoroughly understands the nature of causation.

In other words, it is through understanding causation that one can realize the formlessness of all things, and it is through understanding the formlessness of all things that one can open up to the freedom of the Infinite.

The Diamond Sutra articulates these points in some detail, as do many other Buddhist sutras.

sam: Gravity is in every phenomena too. In fact, without gravity, there would be no cause and effect so it is arguably the more important principle.

David: You need to brush up on your science. Gravity is regarded as one of the four fundamental forces of nature - the others being electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Right. My point is the physical world would not exist without gravity. There would be no basis for galaxies, stars, planets or humans.

The physical world would still exist, just not in the way that we currently know it. It would have different properties, that's all.

Everything that exists is comprised of cause and effect - the physical world, the mental realms, the mystical realms, dreams, gravity, everything.

You are getting metaphysical on me. Cause and effect isn't a thing, it is an idea.

It is neither just an idea, nor a metaphysical entity. It is as real as the things we observe in each moment.

sam: Yes, cause and effect are observed in physical reality. So is gravity. There is no reality without gravity either so you are still making a distinction without a difference.

David: There is no instance, anywhere, in Reality where causation isn't happening. This is what distinguishes it from gravity and all other phenomena.

You are assuming your conclusion. And I've already pointed out where it isn't happening.

It is a logical truth, not an assumption. It is logically impossible for anything to be without causes.

Your attempt to point where it isn't happening (namely, in dreams) only reveals your misunderstanding of causation.

Dreaming is about effects, not causes. For you to say that the dream world operates on the same basis as this world is indicative to me of your attachment to the idea of causation.

The problem is that your conception of causation is very limited - basically equating it with what seems to be repeatable or predictable in the physical world. If this kind of repetition or predictability isn't seen to be occurring, such as in dreams, then it means in your mind that causation isn't operating.

This is a primitive, unchallenged view of causation that a six-year-old kid might have. It is clear that you haven't thought about these matters in any depth. You haven't kicked on and examined exactly what causation is. You haven't seen into the heart of it. If you did, you would see that causation, repetition and predictability are not the same things.

Causal processes can just as easily throw up events that are random and unpredictable as it can predictable ones. The unpredictability in dreams isn't a sign that causation isn't happening, but rather a sign that some of the constraints normally found in the physical world aren't in operation. The lack of these constraints means that events seem to unfold differently within dreams.

You can't find a cause for practically anything in a dream yet you will insist it is all cause and effect. No evidence is presented for your conclusion, it's entirely made up and yet nothing I or anyone else could say would dissuade you from your belief. It is purely a matter of faith.

No, it is a logical truth. It is logically impossible for anything to be without causes.

For example, an event happening in a dream necessarily depends on the mental "stuff" out of which dreams are made, as well as a dreaming mind to do the dreaming in the first place. It also depends, again out of logical necessity, on the existence of what is not that event, to serve as a contrast to its own existence. So already, with just these examples alone, it is proven that a dream event cannot be without causes.

sam: Reality is much larger than the physical world yet you want to take a physical principle and project it everywhere. Why do you want to do that?

David: Causation isn't a physical principle. You are completely mistaken about that. Indeed, it is a principle which can't be described in any terms at all.

So, not physical, not mental, yet here you are talking about it. We are discussing an idea, aren't we?

I don't know about you, but I am discussing the reality of how things are created.

God is neither physical, nor mentalistic, nor mystical. Indeed, God cannot be described in such a manner at all. That is why in Buddhism they stress the concept of "emptiness" or "the void".

While it is responsible for all physical events, it is also responsible for all mental, mystical and dreams event as well. And yet the principle itself isn't physical or mental or mystical in nature, or anything like that. It is simply the principle of creation - and that is all.

Again, you put it in the world of Platonic forms. And you don't see this as a point of view?

It is not a Platonic form. Causation is as real as the nose on your face.

sam: Causation is about the physical world. Do you really think reality is limited to the physical? Have you ever been unconscious? What is causation to the unconscious?

David: A dead body rolled into a grave, rotting away, becoming food for other lifeforms ...... and yet all along, the dead body caused to be unaware of all this.

Causation arises within consciousness, not the other way around.

Your own limited understanding of causation can only arise within consciousness, that is true. But causation as it really is, the heart of Nature, is timeless and beyond life and death. It never arises and never goes away. Without it, not even consciousness could come into being.

-

[David Quinn]

If you preach causation, which you do, it makes no sense to judge other people no matter what they say or do as it is just a matter of cause and effect. You are a big believer in logic and that is as logical as it gets. You seem to understand it is a contradiction but not when it applies to you. Do you see the difference in saying, "this guy has no spirituality" and "I don't see the spirituality in this guy"? One is about judgment, the other is about discernment.

Let's see if I can put this in a language that you can understand:

Tree caused. Tree ignorant.

Buddha caused. Buddha not ignorant.

David caused. David can see tree ignorant and Buddha not ignorant.

Sam caused. Sam believe tree and Buddha must be same ignorant, if both are caused.

David caused. David think Sam confused.

Sam caused. He think David shouldn't say these things.

If a particular person, such as an Alex or a Laird, cannot see the great truths of life, which are so obvious and staring at him in the face, then clearly there is a problem. There are mental blocks at play. Assessing exactly what the problem is constitutes the very first step towards resolving it. Becaused of this, the ability to judge is absolutely critical to spiritual development.

Whatever Alex, Laird or I see in life is simply what we see under causation. That is YOUR idea. Then you take that idea and say, "there is something wrong with your seeing, you are missing the great truths of life." No, there is nothing wrong with what we see under causation. We see what we're caused to see. That's it. There is no great truth, there is only what you see. Judging people for what they see presupposes they could see something other than what they see. How could they if they are caused to see what they see?

Laird caused. Laird caused to be ignorant. If Laird caused to be no longer ignorant, then Laird will no longer be ignorant.

David caused. David sees mental hindrances in Laird, which stop him ridding ignorance. David says to Laird he has mental hindrances and describes them.

Sam caused. Sam think David blaming Laird in saying he has mental hindrances. He think Laird shouldn't have mental hindrances, if all is caused.

David caused. David think Sam is confused.

Sam caused. He think David shouldn't say these things.

-

[Peter L]

Sam, can you please define causation? (What is it and why do people keep referring to it and how do you think they'd define it?).

[average]

david caused to think x

sam caused to think not-x

sam and david caused to argue with each other

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Do you see the difference in saying, "this guy has no spirituality" and "I don't see the spirituality in this guy"? One is about judgment, the other is about discernment.

Hmm, I think you're making an unnecessary distinction here. Lets take another example:

"This tree is dead" and "I don't see any life left in this tree".

The first phrase is declaring implicitaly a view, in firm, conclusive terms. The second phrase is the same conclusion but stressing slightly more that it's one man's conclusion, for example when contrasted with a phrase like "the folks from the forestry have declared this tree dead".

[David Quinn]

david caused to think x

sam caused to think not-x

sam and david caused to argue with each other

Or rather:

David caused to see X=X

Sam caused not to see X=X, and to think that seeing X=X has no value

David caused to defend the value of seeing X=X

-

[samadhi]

David,

sam: "no longer being bound by forms" - what the hell is this? Even the enlightened have a body, thoughts and feelings.

David: This is a key stage before enlightenment can be realized - that is, knowing how to become free of all forms by utilizing the understanding of the formlessness of all things. In turn, this deep understanding cannot be actualized and put into practice until one thoroughly understands the nature of causation.

In other words, it is through understanding causation that one can realize the formlessness of all things, and it is through understanding the formlessness of all things that one can open up to the freedom of the Infinite.

The Diamond Sutra articulates these points in some detail, as do many other Buddhist sutras.

Sounds bogus but you can believe what you want. In any case, it has zero to do with surrender.

sam: Gravity is in every phenomena too. In fact, without gravity, there would be no cause and effect so it is arguably the more important principle.

David: You need to brush up on your science. Gravity is regarded as one of the four fundamental forces of nature - the others being electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

sam: Right. My point is the physical world would not exist without gravity. There would be no basis for galaxies, stars, planets or humans.

David: The physical world would still exist, just not in the way that we currently know it. It would have different properties, that's all.

I don't think so. Matter clumps together because of gravity.

David: Everything that exists is comprised of cause and effect - the physical world, the mental realms, the mystical realms, dreams, gravity, everything.

sam: You are getting metaphysical on me. Cause and effect isn't a thing, it is an idea.

David: It is neither just an idea, nor a metaphysical entity. It is as real as the things we observe in each moment.

I don't think it's meaningful to talk about it apart from the things in which we can actually observe it.

David: There is no instance, anywhere, in Reality where causation isn't happening. This is what distinguishes it from gravity and all other phenomena.

sam: You are assuming your conclusion. And I've already pointed out where it isn't happening.

David: It is a logical truth, not an assumption. It is logically impossible for anything to be without causes.

Without showing a cause, you are assuming your conclusion. Of course you can always find a cause after the fact, and by find I mean imagine.

Your attempt to point where it isn't happening (namely, in dreams) only reveals your misunderstanding of causation.

You can't show any cause. You can only speculate about it. Do you consider speculation proof of causation?

sam: Dreaming is about effects, not causes. For you to say that the dream world operates on the same basis as this world is indicative to me of your attachment to the idea of causation.

David: The problem is that your conception of causation is very limited - basically equating it with what seems to be repeatable or predictable in the physical world. If this kind of repetition or predictability isn't seen to be occurring, such as in dreams, then it means in your mind that causation isn't operating.

This is a primitive, unchallenged view of causation that a six-year-old kid might have.

lol ... Thanks for the superfluous put-down.

It is clear that you haven't thought about these matters in any depth. You haven't kicked on and examined exactly what causation is. You haven't seen into the heart of it. If you did, you would see that causation, repetition and predictability are not the same things.

Causal processes can just as easily throw up events that are random and unpredictable as it can predictable ones. The unpredictability in dreams isn't a sign that causation isn't happening, but rather a sign that some of the constraints normally found in the physical world aren't in operation. The lack of these constraints means that events seem to unfold differently within dreams.

Unpredictibility does put causation into question. What it indicates is that certain conditions may give rise to some phenomena but not necessarily. Everyone who smokes cigarettes doesn't get cancer. Smoking may be a condition that creates a high likelihood for cancer but the cause of cancer is not cigarettes. People also get cancer without smoking. Conditions are necessary to acquire cancer but to speak of a cause for it is assuming knowledge not in evidence.

sam: You can't find a cause for practically anything in a dream yet you will insist it is all cause and effect. No evidence is presented for your conclusion, it's entirely made up and yet nothing I or anyone else could say would dissuade you from your belief. It is purely a matter of faith.

David: No, it is a logical truth. It is logically impossible for anything to be without causes.

Yet without showing the cause, you are assuming your conclusion. Calling it logical only indicates your investment in the conclusion.

For example, an event happening in a dream necessarily depends on the mental "stuff" out of which dreams are made, as well as a dreaming mind to do the dreaming in the first place. It also depends, again out of logical necessity, on the existence of what is not that event, to serve as a contrast to its own existence. So already, with just these examples alone, it is proven that a dream event cannot be without causes.

You are confusing causes with conditions. No, you can't dream without having a brain but a brain is not a cause of a dream. Dreams consist of experiences but experiences aren't the cause of dreams. My attachment to money wasn't the cause of money appearing in my dream, it was a condition of its appearance. Conditions may be necessary for something to happen but they are not causes for what happens. For instance, horrific abuse or wartime trauma are a condition for PTSD but they don't cause it. If they did, anyone who was abused or in combat would become symptomatic. I certainly don't argue the necessity of conditions but causation in cases like these is simply the explanation you are providing after the fact.

David: Causation isn't a physical principle. You are completely mistaken about that. Indeed, it is a principle which can't be described in any terms at all.

sam: So, not physical, not mental, yet here you are talking about it. We are discussing an idea, aren't we?

David: I don't know about you, but I am discussing the reality of how things are created.

God is neither physical, nor mentalistic, nor mystical. Indeed, God cannot be described in such a manner at all. That is why in Buddhism they stress the concept of "emptiness" or "the void".

Ah, now you're making a little more sense. I think causation is more like God to you rather than how ordinary people understand the term.

David: While it is responsible for all physical events, it is also responsible for all mental, mystical and dreams event as well. And yet the principle itself isn't physical or mental or mystical in nature, or anything like that. It is simply the principle of creation - and that is all.

sam: Again, you put it in the world of Platonic forms. And you don't see this as a point of view?

David: It is not a Platonic form. Causation is as real as the nose on your face.

Again, it's not meaningful to discuss it apart from the events in which it is observed. To do that is to make it into a Platonic form.

sam: Causation arises within consciousness, not the other way around.

David: Your own limited understanding of causation can only arise within consciousness, that is true. But causation as it really is, the heart of Nature, is timeless and beyond life and death. It never arises and never goes away. Without it, not even consciousness could come into being.

Right. You are talking about God. You should just say that.

[samadhi]

David,

Let's see if I can put this in a language that you can understand:

Tree caused. Tree ignorant.

Buddha caused. Buddha not ignorant.

David caused. David can see tree ignorant and Buddha not ignorant.

Sam caused. Sam believe tree and Buddha must be same ignorant, if both are caused.

David caused. David think Sam confused.

Sam caused. He think David shouldn't say these things.

Disparaging people's behavior when you believe that behavior is caused is treating people as free agents; i.e. it assumes that things could have been other than what they are. Is that language you can understand?

Laird caused. Laird caused to be ignorant. If Laird caused to be no longer ignorant, then Laird will no longer be ignorant.

Assuming you can be a cause is what free agency is. You are acting as a free agent.

David caused. David sees mental hindrances in Laird, which stop him ridding ignorance. David says to Laird he has mental hindrances and describes them.

David makes value judgments with regard to people's actions and desires to change them; i.e. assumes things could be other than what they are and he can bring that about. David acts as free agent while denying doing so.

Sam caused. Sam think David blaming Laird in saying he has mental hindrances. He think Laird shouldn't have mental hindrances, if all is caused.

David does not accept certain effects; declares them hindrances. Believes they need to be overcome. Justifies actions to do so as caused. Does nothing different than any free agent acting on desires.

David caused. David think Sam is confused.

Sam caused. He think David shouldn't say these things.

Sam and David have different ideas about what it means to accept causation. Different assumptions lead to different conclusions.



Peter,

Sam, can you please define causation? (What is it and why do people keep referring to it and how do you think they'd define it?).

This was already covered in the debate. You can find it here.



Diebert,

sam: Do you see the difference in saying, "this guy has no spirituality" and "I don't see the spirituality in this guy"? One is about judgment, the other is about discernment.

Diebert: Hmm, I think you're making an unnecessary distinction here. Lets take another example:

"This tree is dead" and "I don't see any life left in this tree".

The first phrase is declaring implicitaly a view, in firm, conclusive terms. The second phrase is the same conclusion but stressing slightly more that it's one man's conclusion, for example when contrasted with a phrase like "the folks from the forestry have declared this tree dead".

The first conclusion is about the condition of something you may or may not have access to. The second is about your own condition which you have direct access to. The first presumes knowledge that requires evidence. The second makes no presumptions but rather relates a direct experience.

[brokenhead]

So already, with just these examples alone, it is proven that a dream event cannot be without causes.

Dreams are absolutely always caused. They are caused the way poo poo is caused. The mind takes in stimuli all day long, just as the body takes in in food. Input/output. Dreams are the mind's waste material.

[Peter L]

Sam,

This was already covered in the debate. You can find it here.

I can't find it, Sam. Can you show me the quote that defines...

Me,

Sam, can you please define causation? (What is it and why do people keep referring to it and how does their definition differ from your own - what do you?).

Thanks, I'd really appreciate it.

[David Quinn]

sam: "no longer being bound by forms" - what the hell is this? Even the enlightened have a body, thoughts and feelings.

David: This is a key stage before enlightenment can be realized - that is, knowing how to become free of all forms by utilizing the understanding of the formlessness of all things. In turn, this deep understanding cannot be actualized and put into practice until one thoroughly understands the nature of causation.

In other words, it is through understanding causation that one can realize the formlessness of all things, and it is through understanding the formlessness of all things that one can open up to the freedom of the Infinite.

The Diamond Sutra articulates these points in some detail, as do many other Buddhist sutras.

Sounds bogus but you can believe what you want. In any case, it has zero to do with surrender.

The Diamond Sutra is bogus ....?

What I describe above is the path to the highest wisdom. If your "surrendering" is causing to reject this path, then I, for one, want nothing to do with it.

Causal processes can just as easily throw up events that are random and unpredictable as it can predictable ones. The unpredictability in dreams isn't a sign that causation isn't happening, but rather a sign that some of the constraints normally found in the physical world aren't in operation. The lack of these constraints means that events seem to unfold differently within dreams.

Unpredictibility does put causation into question. What it indicates is that certain conditions may give rise to some phenomena but not necessarily. Everyone who smokes cigarettes doesn't get cancer. Smoking may be a condition that creates a high likelihood for cancer but the cause of cancer is not cigarettes. People also get cancer without smoking. Conditions are necessary to acquire cancer but to speak of a cause for it is assuming knowledge not in evidence.

Agreed. I've never suggested that any one thing can be the sole cause of something else. Always, a thing is the product of countless causes, most of which we have no awareness of.

For example, an event happening in a dream necessarily depends on the mental "stuff" out of which dreams are made, as well as a dreaming mind to do the dreaming in the first place. It also depends, again out of logical necessity, on the existence of what is not that event, to serve as a contrast to its own existence. So already, with just these examples alone, it is proven that a dream event cannot be without causes.

You are confusing causes with conditions. No, you can't dream without having a brain but a brain is not a cause of a dream. Dreams consist of experiences but experiences aren't the cause of dreams. My attachment to money wasn't the cause of money appearing in my dream, it was a condition of its appearance. Conditions may be necessary for something to happen but they are not causes for what happens.

The distinction between "cause" and "condition" is a false one and breaks down easily when analyzed. Never is a cause anything more than a condition, and never is a condition anything less than a cause.

David: Causation isn't a physical principle. You are completely mistaken about that. Indeed, it is a principle which can't be described in any terms at all.

sam: So, not physical, not mental, yet here you are talking about it. We are discussing an idea, aren't we?

David: I don't know about you, but I am discussing the reality of how things are created.

God is neither physical, nor mentalistic, nor mystical. Indeed, God cannot be described in such a manner at all. That is why in Buddhism they stress the concept of "emptiness" or "the void".

Ah, now you're making a little more sense. I think causation is more like God to you rather than how ordinary people understand the term.

I had assumed that was obvious all along. You have seen me speak about causation for some years now, and you did say that you have read Wisdom of the Infinite. How could you not realize that I always speak about causation in a deeper sense, far beyond the ordinary understanding of causation?

David: While it is responsible for all physical events, it is also responsible for all mental, mystical and dreams event as well. And yet the principle itself isn't physical or mental or mystical in nature, or anything like that. It is simply the principle of creation - and that is all.

sam: Again, you put it in the world of Platonic forms. And you don't see this as a point of view?

David: It is not a Platonic form. Causation is as real as the nose on your face.

Again, it's not meaningful to discuss it apart from the events in which it is observed. To do that is to make it into a Platonic form.

True, but I'm not doing that. Perceiving causation is all about perceiving things in the world more directly than normal, by ceasing to pile false imaginings on top of them as ignorant people unwittingly do - imaginings such as "inherent existence", "objective existence", "inherent worth", "threat", "refuge", "beautiful", "ugly", etc.

To use a Taoist term, getting involved in causation is always a process of "unlearning", of stripping away deluded mental habits.

-

[David Quinn]

David,

Let's see if I can put this in a language that you can understand:

Tree caused. Tree ignorant.

Buddha caused. Buddha not ignorant.

David caused. David can see tree ignorant and Buddha not ignorant.

Sam caused. Sam believe tree and Buddha must be same ignorant, if both are caused.

David caused. David think Sam confused.

Sam caused. He think David shouldn't say these things.

Disparaging people's behavior when you believe that behavior is caused is treating people as free agents; i.e. it assumes that things could have been other than what they are. Is that language you can understand?

No disparagement. Only isolating problems to be solved.

Things can change in future if today's problems solved.

The problem called ego not like. It protests. Thinks it being disparaged.

Laird caused. Laird caused to be ignorant. If Laird caused to be no longer ignorant, then Laird will no longer be ignorant.

Assuming you can be a cause is what free agency is. You are acting as a free agent.

Tree cause of shade, yet tree not free agent.

David caused. David sees mental hindrances in Laird, which stop him ridding ignorance. David says to Laird he has mental hindrances and describes them.

David makes value judgments with regard to people's actions and desires to change them; i.e. assumes things could be other than what they are and he can bring that about. David acts as free agent while denying doing so.

David same as tree. He cause things without being free agent.

David not believe things could be other than what they are. He looks to shape future now.

David works with causation. Causation works with David.

-

[Sapius]

David: David same as tree. He cause things without being free agent.

Sure, but then I would like to hear a tree rather than David. What could really be the difference? May be that David uniquely does not cause the same things as any other thing irrelevant of none being “free” agents?

David not believe things could be other than what they are. He looks to shape future now.

No, IF David caused to believe causation is God, then “David CAUSED not to believe things could be otherwise…” and “CAUSED to believe HE looks to shape future…”; just like others are (EQUALLY) CAUSED to believe otherwise; so there isn’t really a problem if one is caused to value truth or not.

David works with causation. Causation works with David.

Otherwise, generally speaking, things have the capability to work against causation I take it. May be it is David caused to think....

I can’t see how things could work with or against causation, for it could not be apart from any single thing at all, unless one makes a “God” (absolute, hence “real”) out of causation, and a “Devil” (relative, hence “illusion”) out of things, which seems quite absurd actually since one cannot be without the other.

I wonder why we necessarily yearn to have “something” Absolute, and not logically accept that existence is but in and off relativity, and asking if that statement itself is Absolute in any other sense which is beyond relativity, is illogical. But no complains really.

[samadhi]

No disparagement.

Disagreement noted.

The problem called ego not like. It protests. Thinks it being disparaged.

Ego protests. Thinks it is pure as driven snow.

David: Laird caused. Laird caused to be ignorant. If Laird caused to be no longer ignorant, then Laird will no longer be ignorant.

sam: Assuming you can be a cause is what free agency is. You are acting as a free agent.

David: Tree cause of shade, yet tree not free agent.

David misses point. Uses causation to do what he wants.

sam: David acts as free agent while denying doing so.

David same as tree. He cause things without being free agent.

David misses point. Uses causation to do what he wants.

David not believe things could be other than what they are. He looks to shape future now.

Like everyone else.

David works with causation. Causation works with David.

David does what he wants, calls it causation.

[Peter L]

Sam?

[David Quinn]

No disparagement.

Disagreement noted.

But will it be remembered?

David works with causation. Causation works with David.

David does what he wants, calls it causation.

David wants truth. Therefore he recognizes causation.

-

[David Quinn]

David: David same as tree. He cause things without being free agent.

Sure, but then I would like to hear a tree rather than David.

I have no problem with that. A tree can tell you everything there is to know about the nature of reality. Trees are great sages, albeit unintentionally so.

David not believe things could be other than what they are. He looks to shape future now.

No, IF David caused to believe causation is God, then “David CAUSED not to believe things could be otherwise…” and “CAUSED to believe HE looks to shape future…”; just like others are (EQUALLY) CAUSED to believe otherwise; so there isn’t really a problem if one is caused to value truth or not.

People can value whatever they like. They are caused to value whatever they like. Nonetheless, there is a difference between valuing truth and not valuing truth. Different awarenesses and consequences are generated.

David works with causation. Causation works with David.

Otherwise, generally speaking, things have the capability to work against causation I take it. May be it is David caused to think....

I can’t see how things could work with or against causation, for it could not be apart from any single thing at all, unless one makes a “God” (absolute, hence “real”) out of causation, and a “Devil” (relative, hence “illusion”) out of things, which seems quite absurd actually since one cannot be without the other.

True, it is impossible to work for or against causation. However, it is possible to work for or against consciousness of causation.

I wonder why we necessarily yearn to have “something” Absolute, and not logically accept that existence is but in and off relativity, and asking if that statement itself is Absolute in any other sense which is beyond relativity, is illogical. But no complains really.

The main reason is to ensure that one's mind is no longer deceiving itself. To cease leading a nonsensical life. To truly begin existing.

-

[samadhi]

sam: David does what he wants, calls it causation.

David: David wants truth. Therefore he recognizes causation.

Let me try this from a different angle. Someone believes in free will, another in causation. Do they act the same? If their actions are the same, what is the utility of the causation belief? If it makes no difference in how you would act, what is the reason for teaching it?

[David Quinn]

sam: David does what he wants, calls it causation.

David: David wants truth. Therefore he recognizes causation.

Let me try this from a different angle. Someone believes in free will, another in causation. Do they act the same? If their actions are the same, what is the utility of the causation belief? If it makes no difference in how you would act, what is the reason for teaching it?

I delved into this a little bit in Wisdom. For example, at the start of Chapter 3:

Addressing the question of free will is important because it forces one to draw the reality of causality into the inner recesses of one’s being. Instead of keeping causality at a safe distance in the imagination and treating it as though it were a dry academic theory, one needs to let it soak into every pore of one’s being and allow it to work its magic. Only then can the concept spring to life and propel us into the Infinite.

Constant meditation on causality is the first step towards becoming enlightened. One has to learn how to "see" it in everything in the world, including every aspect of one’s inner life. The more you keep causality in mind and focus your consciousness upon it, the better. Even if maintaining such a focus comes at the expense of other activities and thought-processes, you will be better off in the long run. It will slowly dissolve your delusions about the nature of existence and gradually alter your consciousness, making it far more receptive to wisdom. As I mentioned in the introduction, the path to enlightenment is primarily one of freeing one’s consciousness from an entrenched deluded perspective and re-orientating it so that it slides effortlessly into enlightenment. The concept of causality is the perfect tool for this task, particularly in the initial stages of freeing the mind from entrenched delusion.

Integrating the concept of causality with every aspect of one’s being allows one to see through the illusion of self and makes it possible for us to perceive our true nature, which is God. It helps us to realize the truth that we ultimately lack any kind of existence, that God is the doer of all things, and that life and death is an illusion. This is a truly remarkable knowledge and, for the sake of a saner world, needs to be understood by everyone.

In other words, the primary consequence of immersing oneself in causation-consciousness is the gradual, relentless and permanent altering of everyday perception. If done properly, a full re-orientation of consciousness will occur - "a turning about in the seat of consciousness", as described in Zen - leading to a radically different inner relationship with all things, both externally and internally.

This re-orientation process involves the complete piercing of Maya (the illusion of inherent existence) and sets in place the conditions for the thorough undermining of all false thinking. This also includes the undermining of egotism, due to the fact that the ego exists purely within the realm of false thinking.

From there everything else follows. "Change the mind, change the world", as an old saying goes.

-